According to a report by the Council
of the European Union's Migration and Expulsion Working Party
(MEX WP), 166,909 people were deported by plane from the
member states and Norway during 1999. The UK, with over 45,000
expulsions accounts for some 27% of the total. However, it should
be noted that the report (full-text,
"pdf" format) dated 4 May 2000, did not consider
expulsions carried out by other means - such as people expelled
at the EU's borders with central and Eastern Europe. (Germany
is the EU's largest expelling state if all forms of expulsion
are considered).

The table below reproduces the information
submitted by national delegations in response to a MEX WP questionnaire.
Iceland and Norway also participate in the working group through
association agreements concluded under the terms of the Amsterdam
Treaty - despite remaining outside of the EU.

The expulsion figures are illuminating
because they provide a rare overview of national practices across
"Fortress Europe". However, they should be taken as
indicative rather than actual.

The report notes that:

each national total includes all expulsions,
both deportation and repatriation, irrespective of the status
of the person involved ("aliens", "asylum applicants",
"non asylum applicants", other cases).

The failure to distinguish between the
different forms of expulsion is particularly problematic, not
least in the case of "repatriations" which can be "voluntary",
"induced" or "forced". It is possible, for
example, that repatriation programmes run by a member state may
have a significant impact on the data. In addition, with the exception
of France, the data does not distinguish whether the expulsion
is to the country of origin or to another country. The report
suggests that:

from the replies received it appears
that, as general trend, expelled persons are sent to their country
of origin.

However, under the Dublin Convention (on
determining the state responsible for examining an asylum application),
applicants for asylum who have crossed another EU state to make
an application are returned to that state. This can cause "chain
deportations" as people are deported from one EU country
to another, and then expelled after their asylum application is
rejected. In addition, there are thousands of "refugees in
orbit" within the Schengen countries (each state claiming
that a migrant entered the Schengen area from another member state).
These considerations are not made in the report.

The report itself also notes the flaws
in the data, but blames the responses given by the delegations
rather than the methodology used:

the statistical data... may not be
completely accurate, either because statistics are not updated
or because national administrations do not collect the relevant
information.

CIREFI, the EU's "Centre for Information,
Discussion and Exchange on the crossing of frontiers and immigration"
collects more detailed statistics on the extent and nature of
expulsions from the EU, but these are still produced through systems
of national reporting. In any case, this information is deemed
potentially beneficial to "illegal immigration networks"
and withheld from the public on grounds of public security.

Other
findings:
deportation "escorts" & expulsion "difficulties"

The report attempted to examine the practice
of the 17 countries "with regard to transit for the purpose
of expulsion by air". It also sought to assess the effectiveness
of EU cooperation agreements in expulsion matters (see chronology
below).

Delegations were asked whether there was
a need for "escorts" (immigration officials or police
officers) to accompany deportees during their expulsion, and if
so the capacity in which these escort act.

Country

Capacity in which "escorts" act

Belgium

An escort is arranged when there are indications
that the person to be expelled may be aggressive or may put the
safety of the aeroplane in danger.
A distinction is made between:
a) escorts organised for the expulsion of an inadmissible person.
These are carried out by the Ministry of the Interior on behalf
of Sabena. The escort retained has the status of "police
officer", so escorts act as officers for aviation safety.
b) Escort organised for a person who has entered the country
-Status of escorts derives from national and international provision.
During the flight, officers must comply with the rules of the
Tokyo Convention.

Denmark

In case of expulsion under escort, two policemen
normally accompany every alien being expelled. In certain cases,
more than two persons may escort the alien, if it is deemed necessary.
While on board, policemen act under the instructions of the captain.
At the airport they act under instructions of the local authorities.

Germany

not given

Greece

An escort is necessary only when the person expelled
refuses to board the aircraft and offers passive resistance.

Spain

The decision whether or not to use an escort
is taken on a case by case basis, depending on the ircumstances.

France

not given

Ireland

not given

Italy

Even when there is no legal obligation, it is
usually necessary to provide an escort.

Luxembourg

Escorts are provided when considered necessary.

Netherlands

When flying on a Dutch plane, escorts act as
legal officers; if not, they have no legal power.

Austria

Escorts are provided only for difficult expulsions,
or where the airline company requests it.

Portugal

Escorts are provided:
a) When the profile of the alien to be expelled suggests he/she
may resist expulsion.
b) When transit airports require it.

Finland

There are no available statistics on this subject.

Sweden

Escorts are provided when considered necessary.

U K

Escorts are provided when considered necessary
for medical or security purposes.

Iceland

------

Norway

not given

"Difficulties" experienced in
carrying out expulsions were also requested by the MEX WP, with
five delegations reporting problems of "resistance"
on the part of the person being deported (Belgium, Germany, Greece,
France and Netherlands). The Netherlands delegation also reported
that in one case:

The captain of the aircraft refused
to board the escort and the deported person because of his/her
heavy resistance to leave.

The report concluded that while:

the stated difficulties are all of
a different nature... it seems quite obvious that all these problems,
experienced in almost all the transit airports, could easily
be eliminated through increased co-operation
between the authorities of the countries involved. [Emphasis
added]

European
Union cooperation on expulsion

Feasible "increased cooperation"
would seem achievable only through new legislation. The present
cooperation mechanism is the non-binding 1995 EU Recommendation
on cooperation in expulsions (see legislative chronology below)
which provides for airport transit arrangements, a standard deportation
document and principles for 'group expulsions'. In a MEX WP review
of the measure last year, Austria described the measure as "
meaningless" and "of no practical effect", and
only 2 of 15 member states referred specifically to applying the
provisions. Much existing cooperation on expulsion thus takes
place through bilateral working arrangements or provisions written
in to bilateral readmission agreements. In April 1999 Germany
proposed a Joint Action that would - had it been adopted - have
obliged member states to provide each other with mutual assistance
in carrying out expulsions and set guidelines for "escorts".
It proposed that requested states provide for:

meeting the third-country alien at
the aircraft and escorting him on the territory of the transit
airport, in particular to his connecting flight;

placing the third-country alien in
an enclosed transit area or, if necessary, in a detention room;
using legitimate force to prevent or end any attempt by the third-country
alien to resist transit, for the protection of bystanders and
the requesting Contracting State;

providing emergency medical care to
the third-country alien and his escort, to the extent required
for the purposes of transit.

A background document from the German delegation
that preceded the proposal had suggested that:

The fact that accompanying officials
depend wholly on the active support of those with local jurisdiction
is an incentive to the persons being expelled to take advantage
of the situation and use violence to break free.

A costly
business

If numbers of rejected asylum-seekers continue
to increase in the member states, expulsions will be stepped up.
The legislation proposed by the French Presidency of the EU -
on the mutual recognition of expulsion orders; increased penalties
for facilitating illegal immigration, entry or residence; and
more "carrier sanctions" (see Statewatch vol
10 no 3 & 4) - will criminalise 'irregular' migrants and lead
to more expulsions.

The total cost of expelling the 170,000
people by air from across the EU must be phenomenal - particularly
where deportees are "escorted". The increasing costs
faced by some national immigration authorities have seen an increase
in "group expulsions" using specially chartered flights
(although little reliable data is made available). Others - including
the UK - have recently stated their intention to carry out deportations
in this way. The next logical 'economy of scale' is multilateral
group expulsions, and a precedent of several countries organising
a group deportation by charter-flight was set at least as long
as five years ago when Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands
arranged joint expulsions to the former Zaire during 1995 and
1996. "Principles" for conducting such expulsions exist
in the 1995 EU Recommendation, but according to a reference in
another MEX WP document (dated April 1999) are more likely to
be governed by procedures determined in the IGC Subgroup on
Charter Flights. [The "Intergovernmental Consultations
on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America
and Australia" was created in 1985, it is not accountable
to the EU].

Hypocrisy
and human resources

This year, the so-called immigration debate
has taken something of a new direction. Politicians have begun
to talk about the need for migrants, albeit in very cautious terms.
The UN produced a report based on the demographic structure of
the EU's population suggesting that the falling birth rate and
"ageing population" necessitates immigration (many similar
studies have, of course, existed for some time). In July, the
French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, was quoted
extensively in The Guardian under the headline "Europe
'should accept' 75m new migrants" (see Statewatch
vol 10 no 3 & 4). In the UK, Barbara Roche, the Home Office
Minister responsible for immigration, has recently weighed into
the debate following a summer of 'news' regarding Britain's shortage
of doctors, nurses, IT specialists and high-skilled workers. The
current debate is of course framed in terms of "skills",
but it is equally clear that low-skilled workers are also needed,
be they cleaners, bus-drivers or caterers. Indeed, in a speech
made earlier this week Ms Roche noted:

There were even reports this summer
that fruit was being left in the fields to rot because farmers
could not find workers to pick it.

Ironically, minutes earlier she had cited
"Operation Gangmaster", a two year initiative targeting
the illegal employment of immigrants of in the agricultural industry,
as "a good example of enforcement work".

To take the figures attributed to M. Chevenement,
the 170,000 people expelled from the EU last year could be seen
as 0.2 percent of the immigrants the bloc needs over the next
50 years. Instead, the massive human suffering arising from mass-deportations,
looks set to be followed by more expense and more bureaucracy
in the name of "managed migration".

Sources:

"Migration in a global economy",
speech given by UK immigration minister Barbara Roche to the
IPPR, London, 11.9.00;

Monitoring the implementation of
instruments adopted by the Council concerning illegal immigration,
readmission, the unlawful employment of third-country nationals
and cooperation in the implementation of expulsion orders - Summary
report of Member States replies to the questionnaire launched
in 1998, NOTE from General Secretariat of the Council to Migration
(Expulsion) Working Group, 27.4.1999, 7668/99 limité MIGR
29;

Assistance in cases of transit for
the purposes of expulsion by air, NOTE from incoming Presidency
to Migration Working Party (Expulsion), 21.12.1999, 14348/98,
limité ASIM 261 MIGR 32;

Assistance in cases of transit for
the purposes of expulsion by air, Note from Presidency to Migration
Working Party (Expulsion), 12.4.1999, 7264/99, limité
MIGR 19;

Background

EU measures
concerning expulsion

1992 Interior Ministers in the EC Ad
Hoc Intergovernmental Group on Immigration Recommendation on
transit for the purposes of expulsion (30.11.1992);

1994 EU Council Recommendation on the
adoption of a standard travel document for the expulsion of third-country
nationals (30.11.1994)

1995 EU Council Recommendation on concerted
action and cooperation in carrying out expulsion measures (22.11.1995);

1996 Council Decision on monitoring the
implementation of instruments adopted by the Council concerning
illegal immigration, readmission, the unlawful employment of
third country nationals and cooperation in the implementation
of expulsion orders (16.12.1996);

1998 Decision of the Schengen Executive
Committee on cooperation between the contracting parties in returning
aliens by air (12.4.1998 (now incorporated into the EC legal
framework);

1999 Proposed Joint Action on assistance
in cases of transit for the purposes of expulsion by air (see
Statewatch vol 9 no. 3 & 4)

All documents are available from SEMDOC
(Statewatch European Monitoring & Documentation centre
on Justice and Home Affairs).

Recent
deaths that occurred during expulsions

1991 Arumugam Kanapathipillai, 33, Tamil,
died from asphyxiation after being gagged and wrapped in blanket
on a Paris to Columbo flight;

1993 Joy Gardner, 40, Jamaican, died
in a London hospital three weeks after being manacled and gagged
by the "Alien Deportation Squad" (August 1993 - see
Statewatch vol 3 no 4);

1994 Kola Bankole, Nigerian, died at
Frankfurt airport, Germany, after being injected with a large
dose of sedatives. Nigeria alleges 25 deportee deaths in Germany
over three years (September 1994 - see Statewatch vol 4 no 5);

1998 Semira Adamu, 20, Nigerian, forced
on to a plane from Belgium to Togo died of a brain haemorrhage
caused by asphyxiation after a pillow was placed over her face
(22.9.1998 - see Statewatch vol 8 no 5);

1999 Khaled Abuzarifeh, 27, Palestinian,
died in a lift in a building of the Swiss "deportation"
airport, Kloten. According to doctors he was gagged, which lead
to a panic attack, vomit and death by suffocation (27.3.1999
- see Statewatch vol 9 no 3 & 4);

1999 Marcus Omofuma, 25, Nigerian, died
while accompanied by three Belgian Federal Police detectives
on a flight from Vienna to Lagos via Sofia. He suffocated after
his hands and feet were chained and mouth gagged with tape (1.5.1999
- see Statewatch vol 9 no 3 & 4);

1999 Aamir Mohamed Ageeb, Sudanese, died
of heart failure after being dragged onto a plane at Frankfurt
airport with his hands and feet tied and his head encased in
a motorcycle helmet (28.5.1999 - see Statewatch vol 9 no 3 &
4).

In addition, to these and other deaths
that have occurred during expulsions, hundreds have committed
suicide in detention while awaiting deportation.

According to UNITED, a European anti-racist
network,more than 2000 refugees and migrants have died in and
around Europe since 1993 as a result of European refugee policies.
Details of the 2000 cases are available from their website: UNITED